Editorial: The public had a right to know Tam board's vote

Tam High students and parents protest the dismissal of three math teachers at Tamalpais high school in Mill Valley, Calif. on Friday, March 14, 2014.(James Cacciatore/Special to Marin Independent Journal)
James Cacciatore

Sunshine Week is a media-designated period when the media, civic groups and others are encouraged to write or broadcast stories that emphasize the public's right to know and access to public records. The intent is to remind the public that it has rights to see public records and to remind governmental officials that the public's business needs to be done in public.

Our reporters are expected to question officials when they are denied a report or a vote that should be public record.

That's why we followed up on last week's Tamalpais Union High School District Board of Trustees' vote on whether to uphold the administration's recommendation to dismiss a number of teachers.

The five-member school board deliberated and voted in private and informed the audience that the board voted to uphold the administration's decision.

School board president Bob Walter's statement did not provide the public with information on how individual trustees voted. The audience could assume the vote was unanimous.

But Walter, who spoke for the board, did not say it was unanimous and trustees did not speak up to provide details on the vote.

When IJ reporter Laith Agha asked Superintendent Laurie Kimbrel for details of the vote, she said she would first have to check with the district's lawyer.

On Tuesday, she told us the vote was 4-1, but said she was not permitted to disclose trustees' votes.

In fact, she didn't explain until even later that the board actually cast two votes — one unanimous and the other was 4-1.

When we checked independently, Trustee Chuck Ford acknowledged that he cast the dissenting vote.

We wouldn't be asking for the information unless we thought the public was entitled to know.

The public deserves to know how its elected representatives vote, whether or not the deliberations occur in closed session, which in this situation was appropriate to respect workers' privacy.

California's "open meeting" laws require councils, boards and commissions to make public the votes cast behind closed doors, not just the majority's conclusion.

What public purpose is served by keeping the vote secret? The exact vote may be controversial. It might show a split in the board's leadership. School boards are comprised of five individuals elected by district voters. They are not supposed to be Xerox trustees, without differences of opinion or priorities.

This is an example of why California needs to strengthen, not weaken its public records laws.

A sweeping ray of sunshine targeted state lawmakers in 2012 when the Assembly and Senate — including Marin's representatives — voted to weaken a state law requiring local government to post agendas in public.

It was as if state lawmakers already had forgotten about the Bell scandal where city officials quietly pumped up their paychecks to exorbitant amounts.

Under pressure, lawmakers quickly backpedaled, passed a last-minute amendment and put a constitutional measure on June's ballot. Proposition 42 will make the Brown Act, California's open meetings law, part of the state constitution and no longer subject to the shenanigans of Sacramento.

Passage of the proposition may also help remind local politicians and bureaucrats that Californians demand sunshine, and that those who conduct the public's business have a responsibility to be as open as legally possible and not leave the public in the dark.